Craig's response to the situation is good, and captures the whole of Jim's blog well:
Thanks for the clarification, Carl, and thanks Jim for acknowledging it. Yes, this site did request and receive permission to use the Denver Journal recommendations as one of a whole number of bibliographies from which they got their items, and yes it is an evangelical site so they may well have reference all evangelical bibliographies for all I know. And yes, we well-know the ground-breaking role of Bultmann, and Taylor, and plenty of others, and yes we have tried to focus primarily on the most recent works.
It’s a bibliography designed for our students and our constituency and should be evaluated on that basis. Language like that of “absurdity” with respect to omissions doesn’t seem to me to be in keeping with the spirit of the Golden Rule, especially when it’s based on someone else’s reuse of a bibliography wrongly attributed to us.
You accused me of “getting testy” several months ago when you similarly misused information. I’m trying to write this response as even-handedly as possible but when others use inflammatory language to demean something they haven’t read carefully enough to understand either its purpose or origin, I think you can understand what might come across as a little bit testy. One even might wonder which is more absured [sic]. . . Are you interested in real scholarship, Jim, or just in demeaning those you disagree with?
Well stated. Many biblical studies folks know Craig and would find such criticism to be quite out-of-line, because of the level of scholarship which he has produced over the years. And his character is solidly committed to living out the truth of Scripture. Hence, reading this criticism of him and his work can easily be discarded for those who know him well. Maybe this could be avoided if some actual thinking occurred while not typing on a computer every ten minutes.
And since Jim has a history of moderating me out of his comments section (which he again did here), I will include what was intended as a response to his unapologetic apology.
Once again you were out of line and continue to be out of line in your response to the situation. Craig nails your personality and the tenor of this entire site when he asks: "Are you interested in real scholarship, Jim, or just in demeaning those you disagree with?"
I have stopped reading this drivel some time ago, only visiting now because I saw Blomberg's name. This is because he has proven himself to be a legitimate academic, a scholar of integrity, and a committed disciple. He models this, and I have mentioned numerous times to you that your words and behavior demonstrated here cannot reflect the same.
Sorry to say, but again you need to consider theological (and social, political, cultural) discussion without the name-calling and demeaning.
Michael C Thompson (the one whose comments you typically don't allow to be published)
I know that Jim comes across as a blogging-hero to many people, but frankly I cannot stand the level of his rhetoric. And I have completely turned away from anything he has to say. But when he steps into my range of vision - i.e., attacking my friend, Craig Blomberg - I am going to respond. Not because Craig needs me to, but because people who operate with such a level of uninformed idiocy needs to shut up.